WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
Sunava Dutta wrote:
> I think you mean compatible with browsers who enable
> the technologies when you mean compatible with the web?
"Compatible with the web" means that when a UA implements the specification as
written it will encounter either no reports of pages broken due to that
implementation or a very very small number of them.
One possible way to do that is to implement exactly what the market leader
implements, although even that is no guarantee if sites work around some
behavior of the market leader based on UA sniffing.
In reality, what's needed here is that all "commonly used" functionality (and
yes, this is an imprecise term; so is "compatible with the web" in the end) is
specified the way websites expect it to work. Whether they expect it because of
some other implementation, because of a popular book, because of documentation
somewhere, or for some other reason is not relevant. What's relevant is what
they expect when they write their code.
> I'm amenable to what Maciej
> said when he mentioned that in the case (I'm assuming this is a rarity) where
> the implementations are doing whacky things or doing nothing at all, it makes
> sense to work together to identify a way/solution that will allow for
Right. Any time implementations disagree, the most likely conclusion is that
the point on which they don't agree is not used much, if at all, by websites.
Therefore the exact behavior the spec requires on that point doesn't affect the
"compatible with the web" criterion.